David was slapped down twice for TV-over-Internet broadcasts. Now—holograms.

FilmOn founder Alki David, fresh off getting sanctioned $90,000 for broadcasts using the Aereo-like parts of his TV-over-Internet company, is ramping up a new kind of litigation. He said he owns patents related to hologram technology and keeps accusing high-profile hologram performances of intellectual property infringement.

The newest lawsuit (PDF) is over a hologram of Homer Simpson that was one of the highlights of last month's San Diego Comic-Con. On July 26, TheSimpsons creator Matt Groening chatted with Homer for about two minutes.

During the video (above), Simpson complains about the Comic-Con registration process. "I don't care. I get my free ticket from the hologram of Tupac Shakur," answered Groening.

That was red meat to David and his people. His complaint argues that the makers of the Tupac Shakur hologram, which was displayed at the Coachella Music Festival in 2012, got a license to his patents—unlike 20th Century Fox, which owns The Simpsons.

David, who said he maintains a showroom of 3D "faces and products" in Beverly Hills, owns US Patent Nos. 5,865,519 and 7,883,212 together with Uwe Maass and Musion Das Hologram. The trio have sued other allegedly infringing holograms. In May, David tried to stop the Billboard Music Awards from moving ahead with a performance that included a hologram of Michael Jackson. That effort failed, but David and Hologram USA still have active litigation against Cirque du Soleil for an ongoing show they have involving the Jackson image. They also have an active lawsuit against Arena 3D, which sells "license-free Pepper's Ghost Foil."

Pepper's Ghost is the name for an optical illusion technique that's actually pretty old, dating back to the 19th Century. The "holograms" that are performing these days are the newest and fanciest incarnation of this technology.

"Fox used the same technology in X-Men 4 and they paid us there," said David in an e-mail to Ars. "It is not an unreasonable amount, and many clients are happy to pay for something I've spent many millions of dollars acquiring and will defend vigorously."

Fox, meanwhile, said that David's lawsuit was basically a publicity play.

"This filing is totally without merit and we have no comment except to say that once again, Mr. David has demonstrated his insatiable need to remain relevant," a Fox spokesperson told The Hollywood Reporter, which firstreported David's new hologram lawsuit.

I doubt he'll get anything, his other lawsuit (from the Michael Jackson hologram) isn't going very well. The only reason stuff like this happens is the US judicial system is too lax on people who launch frivolous lawsuits. In most countries they're either immediately thrown out or the loser has to pay court costs and damages (for filing a frivolous lawsuit).

I doubt he'll get anything, his other lawsuit (from the Michael Jackson hologram) isn't going very well. The only reason stuff like this happens is the US judicial system is too lax on people who launch frivolous lawsuits. In most countries they're either immediately thrown out or the loser has to pay court costs and damages (for filing a frivolous lawsuit).

And way too lax at checking whether a patent should be granted or not.

I think the only people paying for the license are those who feel it is better to throw a few thousand dollar nuisance fee to him rather than worry about any kind of possible litigation.

I don't think anyone is happy about it.

I can't think of the last time I've actually been HAPPY to give my money to someone. I mean, I've bought things that I thought were WORTH what I spent on them, but I can't recall giving someone money for something and being happy about the fact that it cost something.

Let alone an "idea" that is arguably centuries old and is certainly >150 years old, and you put "3D" in the patent description and called it a day, then "acquired" said idea from someone else and threatened to sue me if I wanted to use it, if I didn't pay you money.

Somehow all the recent patent squabbles involve some sort of pre-existing or obvious technology that is in one way or another rephrased by someone to make a new patent without really making anything new just locking away the tech with the purpose to go rent-seeking after the people actually making or employing the tech or to sell it to someone who will.. Patents no longer help/encourage innovation they actually discourage it and slow it down. This case is just another great example.

At this point I would be just as happy to shut the patent office down as a criminal enterprise and start over. Next time maybe try a system that encourages innovation. And start by revoking all software patents.

Does these patents actually cover Pepper's Ghost, some specific detail of an implementation of Pepper's Ghost, or actual variable-viewpoint holograms?

If I recall, instead of the mirror in Pepper's Ghost, they use a reflective sheet?

It generally isn't a simple mirror, but just a sheet of glass that serves as "enough" of a mirror. esp since generally you want a "ghostly" appearance. In some cases it's a partially-silvered sheet of glass, much as is used in "one-way windows".

The ones in the "dancing" scene in the Haunted Mansions are supposedly the biggest part-silvered pieces of glass ever made. They had to be lowered into place through a slit in the roof that was put there for that purpose, since no other openings or paths in the building were big enough.

(Why not install the glass early and build the rest of the building around it? Too likely the glass would be damaged during the later construction. I wonder if the "seven years of bad luck" applies to a partial mirror? Maybe it's only 3.5 years? Or maybe the effect is compounded for being in the Haunted Mansion... )

I thought that in one of the other threads covering these so-called holograms, it was established that the "reflective sheet" was an innovation of Musion, the company that supplies the equipment for the Vocaloid (Hatsune Miku, et al) concerts.

Updated: I've found some claims that no, the Vocaloid concerts use rear projection, with a proprietary (expensive) screen called a "Dilad" screen. It is a lenticular RP screen, using microscopic bubbles. Some DIYers have found they can get a similar effect with mosquito netting...

At this point I would be just as happy to shut the patent office down as a criminal enterprise and start over. Next time maybe try a system that encourages innovation. And start by revoking all software patents.

Easy financial penalty to the patent examiner if the patent is later ruled invalid.

Get some skin in the game and watch just how quickly patent applications fail.

Does these patents actually cover Pepper's Ghost, some specific detail of an implementation of Pepper's Ghost, or actual variable-viewpoint holograms?

If I recall, instead of the mirror in Pepper's Ghost, they use a reflective sheet?

Reminds me of how modern mattress salesmen have resorted to calling the springs in a mattress (those that have them) coils. This mattress hasn't any springs, it's the magic of coils (springs by any normal person's standard).

At the end of the day, the holographic tech is a really obvious slight update to Pepper's Ghost. One that should in no way have ever been patentable due to obviousness. The US Patent and Trademark Office - run by folks who never met a patent they wouldn't pass, regardless of prior art or the obvious nature of the patent application. Novelty? Originality? Pffttt, so overrated.

So if you guys know this is NOT a hologram and it's not related to any holographic technique, why do you keep calling it a hologram? That label serves to sell the notion that these techniques are optically more sophisticated than they actually are.

"and many clients are happy to pay for something I've spent many millions of dollars acquiring"

Amusing that he doesn't even bother with the "poor inventor worked so hard to invent this" card.

He didn't invent it. He has his own inventions but not that technology. He bought the hologram patents.

Quote:

He said he owns patents related to hologram technology and keeps accusing high-profile hologram performances of intellectual property infringement.

I seriously doubt the actual inventors got much, if any, of that "millions of dollars" David spend acquiring the patents. These patents date back 10 years (one of the citations goes back 100 years!) and most were concept patents only. There were no working models of them until recently.

His purpose is to make money with the patents, all based on the work of others.

Two questions First of all : not a holagram Is this term used in the actual patent? Or is it just more marketing motivated casual disrgard of turth? If it's actual in patent then the patent should be invalid on the face of it.

secondly : I've actually have worked in film/lighting/visual effects quite a bit and if the patent is nothing more than a variation of pepper's ghost well that's the baisis of so many historical image systems that would qualify as pior art that said patent should be invalid on the face of it.

Just look at a fundlemental item commonly used in film and optics, the beam splitter - crudely a slanted two way mirror/half silvered piece of glass, used in a manner fudlementally identical to pepper's ghost as a critical component in things as common as the newsroom teleprompter or to align two paired cameras' nodel points in some current 3/d cinema systems, or more obscurely to do fundlemental the same thing between a camera and projector in the decades obsolete film visual effect of front screen projection.

Or is the patent based on some specific technical inovation in the application of pepper's ghost?

This would be like scotchlite, a 3m patented ( i believe ) material that is today used in things like stopsigns or high vis strips but also was the material used as the screen in my above mentioned example of front screen projection.

That is something I could see having a valid patent on, if its like that and these other shows are using the specific innovative material or technic ok then they may have a point.

... But if any old stuff will do the job and its actually the basic set up of a pretty basic and obvious not to mention pirory established trick.. Then ... Well that's just silly.

Mr David appears to be under the assumption that his patent covers every rendition of the Pepper's Ghost technique. It should be a patent on a specific implementation of the technique that's unique and inventive. I didn't see anything here to indicate there was any actual investigation into the technique used to determine if it violated the patent. Just a generic "I have a patent for this technique". If that's true, then it can't be a valid patent.

Mr David appears to be under the assumption that his patent covers every rendition of the Pepper's Ghost technique. It should be a patent on a specific implementation of the technique that's unique and inventive.

After reading both patents and the lawsuit, I think it has some merit -- The '212 patent ("Projection Apparatus And Method For Pepper’s Ghost Illusion.") is very much about a specific implementation to overcome limitations of prior art systems. The '519 patent ("Device for displaying moving images in the background of a stage") is about a large scale implementation suitable for stage shows that can be easily transported and erected on site and quickly deployed *during* the show without interfering with other acts.

The '212 patent is about some specific tech that makes it look more real and less ghostly, there *could* be a patent violation. Until Fox explains the tech used here, there's no way to know. The reflective screen for Tupac deployed in under a minute during the performance, rather than being permanently on stage or setup between acts, looking at the Homer Simpson video it *seems* like something similar was done here and could violate the '519 patent.

I didn't see anything here to indicate there was any actual investigation into the technique used to determine if it violated the patent. Just a generic "I have a patent for this technique". If that's true, then it can't be a valid patent.

The lawsuit explains the *belief* that the patents are violated. Fox aren't going to explain their technique or show the technical details unless they're forced to, assuming the lawsuit is allowed to proceed they will be forced to explain it to the plaintiff during discovery.

Great business model this guy has. Dig up something novel, find what old ideas it's based on, and patent it. I'm pretty sure this is not how the patent system was intended to work. I'm pretty sure nobody wants the patent system to work this way. One can only hope somebody patents this business model.

I've read through the patents and in my opinion at least patent US5865519 seems to be a novel system (although I haven't researched variants of Pepper's Ghost in-depth).

However it is quite a specific method and no doubt there are many other methods that could be implemented without infringing the claims. This I assume is why the courts in the Michael Jackson illusion case would not grant an injunction, since there was no clear evidence that they would actually be using the specific patented method.

The diagram below shows the set-up from the point of view of the audience. There are two surfaces in place - firstly there is a mirror on the floor of the stage (numbered as 18) which reflects light upwards from the downwards pointing projector (12). The image from the projector (12) is reflected into a transparent foil (20).

This foil is fastened to the floor and the ceiling, and is arranged so that the fastening point on the ceiling is closer to the audience so that it leans forwards and can display the image that is reflected up from the floor mirror. The essential features of the patent claims are:

- there is a floor and a ceiling,- the floor has a mirror,- the image source (projector) is mounted on the ceiling and projects onto the floor mirror,- there is a transparent foil mounted between floor and ceiling that is mounted further forward at the ceiling.

To infringe, a system must include every one of these features.

- I can also confirm that the patent does not use the term 'hologram' at any point.

So if you guys know this is NOT a hologram and it's not related to any holographic technique, why do you keep calling it a hologram? That label serves to sell the notion that these techniques are optically more sophisticated than they actually are.

I've read through the patents and in my opinion at least patent US5865519 seems to be a novel system (although I haven't researched variants of Pepper's Ghost in-depth).

However it is quite a specific method and no doubt there are many other methods that could be implemented without infringing the claims. This I assume is why the courts in the Michael Jackson illusion case would not grant an injunction, since there was no clear evidence that they would actually be using the specific patented method.

The diagram below shows the set-up from the point of view of the audience. There are two surfaces in place - firstly there is a mirror on the floor of the stage (numbered as 18) which reflects light upwards from the downwards pointing projector (12). The image from the projector (12) is reflected into a transparent foil (20).

This foil is fastened to the floor and the ceiling, and is arranged so that the fastening point on the ceiling is closer to the audience so that it leans forwards and can display the image that is reflected up from the floor mirror. The essential features of the patent claims are:

- there is a floor and a ceiling,- the floor has a mirror,- the image source (projector) is mounted on the ceiling and projects onto the floor mirror,- there is a transparent foil mounted between floor and ceiling that is mounted further forward at the ceiling.

To infringe, a system must include every one of these features.

- I can also confirm that the patent does not use the term 'hologram' at any point.

(oops I guess saschabeaumont beat me to it)

It's Pepper's Ghost... rotated by 90 degrees!

I'm sure you can get a new patent if you add a computer. Or is that US7883212?

I've read through the patents and in my opinion at least patent US5865519 seems to be a novel system (although I haven't researched variants of Pepper's Ghost in-depth).

However it is quite a specific method and no doubt there are many other methods that could be implemented without infringing the claims. This I assume is why the courts in the Michael Jackson illusion case would not grant an injunction, since there was no clear evidence that they would actually be using the specific patented method.

The diagram below shows the set-up from the point of view of the audience. There are two surfaces in place - firstly there is a mirror on the floor of the stage (numbered as 18) which reflects light upwards from the downwards pointing projector (12). The image from the projector (12) is reflected into a transparent foil (20).

This foil is fastened to the floor and the ceiling, and is arranged so that the fastening point on the ceiling is closer to the audience so that it leans forwards and can display the image that is reflected up from the floor mirror. The essential features of the patent claims are:

- there is a floor and a ceiling,- the floor has a mirror,- the image source (projector) is mounted on the ceiling and projects onto the floor mirror,- there is a transparent foil mounted between floor and ceiling that is mounted further forward at the ceiling.

To infringe, a system must include every one of these features.

- I can also confirm that the patent does not use the term 'hologram' at any point.

(oops I guess saschabeaumont beat me to it)

Thanks for doing the work for me. With that discription it does seem to me that a patent of the sytem itself could be reasonable. Still sounds an awful lot like a certain unemulatable retro cabinet game recently mentioned. Or Is that the same patent?

From reading the link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper's_ghost) that Bitpoet placed up, and looking at the supplied patent images, I'm not seeing much of a difference here other than it being rotated 90 degrees and a projector being used.

Original Image:IMHO this patent is simply crap. There is nothing novel here and it's obviousness is extraordinary. All you are doing is using a projector instead of a human in a sheet.

Since when is it illegal to use patented technology to give a stage performance?

Ik pretty sure that everything from the keynote projector to the chairs the crowd sat in are patented by someone.

So if I provide a keynote performance do I need to license the overhead projector because I'm using it to display an image I created? No. Do I need a special license from Apple for the keynote itself? No. Do I need to call the chair company and get a license for my ass? No.

So fucking what if they used your patented tech to make a hologram? Did anyone at any time during the presentation claim they created that tech? Did anyone charge exclusively for the right to view the hologram? No.

I've read through the patents and in my opinion at least patent US5865519 seems to be a novel system (although I haven't researched variants of Pepper's Ghost in-depth).

However it is quite a specific method and no doubt there are many other methods that could be implemented without infringing the claims. This I assume is why the courts in the Michael Jackson illusion case would not grant an injunction, since there was no clear evidence that they would actually be using the specific patented method.

The diagram below shows the set-up from the point of view of the audience. There are two surfaces in place - firstly there is a mirror on the floor of the stage (numbered as 18) which reflects light upwards from the downwards pointing projector (12). The image from the projector (12) is reflected into a transparent foil (20).

This foil is fastened to the floor and the ceiling, and is arranged so that the fastening point on the ceiling is closer to the audience so that it leans forwards and can display the image that is reflected up from the floor mirror. The essential features of the patent claims are:

- there is a floor and a ceiling,- the floor has a mirror,- the image source (projector) is mounted on the ceiling and projects onto the floor mirror,- there is a transparent foil mounted between floor and ceiling that is mounted further forward at the ceiling.

To infringe, a system must include every one of these features.

- I can also confirm that the patent does not use the term 'hologram' at any point.

(oops I guess saschabeaumont beat me to it)

It's Pepper's Ghost... rotated by 90 degrees!

I'm sure you can get a new patent if you add a computer. Or is that US7883212?

He added the mirror on the floor. And substituted a projector for the hidden room. If I do the exact same thing but eliminate the mirror and put the projector in the floor, pointing up, I get the same effect without violating this patent.

"Other methods of projecting and reflecting images are often described as holographic – or even misleadingly holograms, because they have an optical presence and spatial quality. For example the Pepper’s ghost technique, which uses a partially reflective surface to mix a reflection with the scene beyond. John Henry Pepper demonstrated the technique in the 1860s with it being used to overlay visual elements (often a figure – ‘ghost’) onto a physical set or stage."

From reading the link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper's_ghost) that Bitpoet placed up, and looking at the supplied patent images, I'm not seeing much of a difference here other than it being rotated 90 degrees and a projector being used.

IMHO this patent is simply crap. There is nothing novel here and it's obviousness is extraordinary. All you are doing is using a projector instead of a human in a sheet.

In patent terms novelty is determined by comparing the claims of the patent with any of the examples of the prior art and seeing if there are any differences. It is a very easy threshold to meet, which is why there are so many terrible 'on the internet' patents - since that alone made them 'novel'.

The questions of obviousness is trickier, but is made by comparing the novel features with what was known to a person skilled in the art at the time the patent was filed and deciding on whether it would have been obvious to produce the claimed invention.

I'm not sure what all the variants are to Pepper's Ghost - but the claimed invention compared to the Peppers Ghost original is surely novel due to the presence of the projector, the floor mirror, and the different arrangement.

The idea of using projector seems obvious enough, but what about mounting it on the ceiling?

The original Pepper's Ghosts used a side reflected screen because it was showing a live actor. To use a vertical screen would have required the actor to be in a pit in front of the stage, and it wouldn't be reflected to the audience in the proper orientation - you would see the top of the actors head.

Since a projector is small and the image can be orientated appropriately, it seems it would be obvious that could be placed at the floor and projected upwards onto a vertically angled screen.

However, it seems there could be issues with projecting the image directly onto the foil, perhaps from too much light from the direct projection going through the semi-reflective screen and dazzling the actors behind the screen, or maybe it doesn't look right. I suggest this because the patented method uses a mirror on the floor which is described as being white, like a standard projector screen. I suspect that the more diffuse image from this white 'mirror' mounted on the floor when reflected onto the vertical foil provides a much better image than if the image was projected onto the foil directly. This vertical orientation is clearly better, since the audience can't see the image on the mirror but could if it were side mounted, but that itself clearly obvious.

Overall, the method is to use a projector to display the image on a white screen on the floor which is then reflected forwards from the foil. I really don't see why this would be obvious from the original Pepper's Ghost without the hindsight knowledge of the the invention. Also, bear in mind that the technology to use this patented method (an image projector, a white screen, a semi-reflective mirror) has been around for over a hundred years and yet it was never used until after the patent was filed.

If the claimed method doesn't produce a better image to the audience by using the floor mirror - then no problem, no one needs to use that method and can project onto the foil directly, without any threat of patent infringement. If the patented method does produce a better image, than why can't that be the basis of an invention?

Overall, the method is to use a projector to display the image on a white screen on the floor which is then reflected forwards from the foil. I really don't see why this would be obvious from the original Pepper's Ghost without the hindsight knowledge of the the invention.

That's the only way you're going to get the focal distance right. You need the projector to be as close to the mirror as possible, so the reflection off the mirror appears to be at roughly the same focal distance as the mirror. You can't make modifications to the stage to mount a projector underneath it. A projector mounted tens of feet above the stage would place the reflection behind the back wall of the stage, and produce a very small angle through which the audience could actually view the reflection. The obvious solution is to project the image on the floor in front of the mirror.